The Sun. — London, England, 1864-01-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 27, 1864. Men) •s, Bright and Scholefield at Birmingham, BIRMINGHAM, Tuesday Evening. Mr. Bright, M.P., and Mr. Scholefield, M.P., at tended a meeting in the Townhall this evening, for the purpose of addressing their constituents on ptAblic affairs. The hall was crowded in every part. Mr. HOLLIDAY, the Mayor of Birmingham, occu pied the chair, and having briefly opened the pro. ceedirigs, Mr. G. DIXON moved the following resolution— " The present House of Commons having been elected on the question of Reform, and the majority of its members having pledged themselves to pro• mote an extension of the franchise, this meeting records its opinion that the Parliament has failed in its duty in not having passed a measure which would have admitted a large number of the unen- franchised to a real share in the government of the nation ; and that this meeting believes the present period to be favourable to the passing of such a measure, the necessity for which has on various occasions been enforced by her Majesty's Ministers, and by the leaders of both political parties." The motion having been seconded by Mr. Alder man MANTON, was put and unanimously agreed to. Mr. SCHOLEFIELD, M.P., then rose to address the meeting, and was received with mingled cheers and hisses, but the cheering greatly predominated. He observed that he was prepared tonight, as he always had been, to address his constituents, and he trusted that if any differences of opinion pre- nailed they would agree to discuss those differences in perfect good temper. With regard to the last session of Parliament he did not agree with those who asserted that nothing was done during that session. He believed many useful measures had been passed, and he knew of none of an obnoxious cha ratter except those odious restrictions in reference to the game laws which both himself and his col league had opposed to the utmost of their power* He was not sanguine that any great measure would be passed next session. The reins of government were in hands that were not certainly very strong. The power of the Government was at the mercy of the Conservatives at any moment, and such being the case we could not look for any important mea sures from the Ministry. Nor did he believe, al though the resolution referred to a Reform Bill as a question of importance, that the present Parliament would ever take that question up in a manner to justify the expectations which appeared to be enter tained. With regard to foreign questions, he thought the Government were perfectly right in refusing to enter into the Congress proposed to them by France, but he regretted that the manner in which that over ture from France was met had been more logical than courteous. As to the Danish difficulty, he did not profess to be master of all the complicatiens of the question, bat he sincerely hoped that we should not allow ourselves to be mixed up in it. He trusted it would be borne in mind that although by the Treaty we acknowledged the succession, we did not guarantee it. If the King of Denmark was in diffi culties, like all other Sovereigns in difficulties he must fight out his own battles, and not rely on us to help him. (Cheers.) His own opinion was that the policy to be adopted by her Majesty's Govern ment was a policy of strict non-intervention. When Parliament assembled next week he believed that the Queen's speech would contain no promise of a Reform Bill, but he entertained sanguine hopes that when the state of the finances of the country was laid before Parliament it would be found that there was another surplus, and that consequent upon that there would be another reduction of taxation. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer was the worthy successor of Sir R. Peel, and was determined to carry out the great doctrine of free trade, to reduce the expenses of the country, and to raise the funds necessary for the Government in a way less burdensome to the people. To show the effect which h free-trade policy had produced, he might state that from 1840 to 1862 taxes in the shape of Cus toms were abolished to the extent of £23,000,000, whilst the taxes imposed amounted to £9,000,000, allowing a not reduction in favour of the taxpayer of £14,000,000 sterling, and yet those taxes which in 1830 produced only £35,000,000, produced no less than 141,000,000 in 1862. The assessments for the income tax which in 1840 were £192,000 ; 000, eimounted in 1861 to L 276,000,000. The exports and imports, which amounted to £172,000,000 in 1810, in 1862 had risen to the prodigious amount of £393,000,000. Turning to another topic the hon. gentleman said when in 1862 he stated his views with regard to the American civil war—(cheers and hisses)—he hoped it would not have been necessary for him again to allude to the subject on that occa sion. He differed from a large number of his best and warmest friends, and from his hon. colleague, with whom he differed on no other subject. (Cheers.) He had not changed his opinions, how ever unpopular those opinions might be. (Cheers and hisses.) He was not about to change them. He had never sought mere popularity, and never would do so. A great trust had been confided to him, which he had executed to the best of his ability ; and when his constituents told him that he no longer enjoyed their confidence, he would retire from service without any ill-feeling towards any one. A letter had been published in one of the local papers, in which the writer, after expressing his surprise that he (Mr. Scholefield) had joined the Southern Confederation, went on to say he ought,in fairness, to tell the electors what he meant by recognition, and. asked them, " Does he want to bring a pressure on the Government by enforcing the breaking of the blockade and forcing the country into a war with the United States ? This is a question about which Mr. S. ought not to leave us in doubt." (Hear, hear.) Now, although he abominated above everything recurring to past speeches, as he was now on his defence he must refer to matters of history. In the speech which he addressed to them in 1862, he said this :—" I air not for intervention, because that means war. I am not for mediation, because that means failure; but I am for simple recognition." Ho was asked if he was ready to plunge this country into war by the recog nition, or if he was prepared to call on the Govern ment to break the blockade. With regard to the blockade, if the legal advisers of the Crown said that there was a legal blockade, he for one would not lift his little finger to break it; and if by recog nition war was implied, then he would recoil from it with horror. (Hear, hear, from Mr. Bright.) He contended that recognition was not a departure from neutrality, and that it only implied the moral effect of public opinion. He thought that secession was an act of folly on the part of the South, but it was not for strangers or foreigners to judge what amount of oppression would justify revolt. The Southerns, whatever their grievances, were surely better judges of these grievances than we were. His own opinion was, that however foolish and illegal the secession may have been, it was a moral right conceded by the declaration of independence, and sanctioned by President Lincoln himself. Secession was no new thing in America. There wen a seces sion in 1814. It was not then a secession of the South, but of the New England States. Being opposed to the war, they not only seceded but raised a flag of their own. How was it, then, that what was held to be patriotism then, was now to be re garded as treachery and impolicy ? He urged that the present war was not a war for the emancipation of the slaves ; and if it were, it was not the less on that account an immoral and unjustifiable war. (Cheers and hisses.) The preservation of the Union was the great idea which pervaded the minds of the N orteerners from the President downwards. The President on one occasion declared--e Mypromised object in this Struggle was to save the Union. (Cheers.) Without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the sl aves I would, and if I could save it by freeing so me and leaving others clone I would do that. What I would do about coloured men and slaves I would do because I be lieve it helps to teeve the Union." (Cheers.) After such an expreseion of opinion he was surpri9ed to hear people say that the object of the Pre s id ent was to put down slavery. (Hear, hoar, and marks of dis approbation.) The proclamation emancipating the slaves was issued by the President solely as a war measure, to crush the rebellion and restore the Union by war. (Cheers and uproar.) If this was a war for the cma-aeirti9r. of tlee eleve, then he said most emphatically that it was an immoral war. If it was morally right in America to put down slavery in that country, it was Equally morally right for this country to make war upon Spain to put down slavery in Caba, upon Russia to pnt down serfdom, or upon the King of Dahomey to put down infan ticide. (Cheers, hisses, and great uproar.) He had never been an advocate for peace at any price, but he had always been opposed to any war that was not a decisive war. An aggressive war was, to his mind, a great crime, and would never meet with his sanction and assent. He was told he was blamed not so much for the opinions he had expressed in 1862, bat for having joined a Confederate association. He thought he would have been more open to condem- nation if, after expressing his views, he had not had the courage to carry them out. He was told that in consequence of the course he had taken he would lose his seat. Deeply as he valued the honour which they had conferred upon him, there was something he valued still more highly than a seat in Parlia ment, and that was the right to speak and act freely and independently within the range of the powers with which they themselves had entrusted him. If, for the course he had taken, they deemed him no longer worthy of representing them, he should bow to their decision without the slightest murmur. (Loud cheers.) Mr. BRIGHT then presented himself, and was re ceived with enthusiastic cheering. When silence was restored he spoke as follows :—Gentlemen, although I have often stood on this platform, yet I can assure you that on no former occasion have I felt it necessary so much to ask your forbearance and your silent attention as on this occasion. I had no hope a week ago that I should be able to attend here to-night, and to address this large audience— but, being here in the performance of my duty, as one of your representatives, I shall endeavour to lay before you the thoughts which are uppermost in my mind in which we all feel deeply interested. (Cheers.) There are two subjects which have been treated upon by my hon. colleague, about which I would just say a few words before I come to those matters on which I had intended to speak. The first is the question which now keeps Europe in suspense ; which may end in a war, or may end in some diplomatic accommodation of a long-standing quarrel. I will not go into the history of the Danish and German dispute. I have received since I came here a long and most able letter from a Ger man professor resident in this country on behalf of the German view of the question. Possibly he is now within the sound of my voice. I can only tell him, in telling you, that I agree entirely and from my heart with every word that my hon. colleague spoke upon that question. And I will say further, that if there be a possible Government in our day that will plunge this country into war under the pretence of maintaining the balance of power in Europe, and sustaining any kingdom there, be it little or great, that Government not only is not worthy the confidence of the people of England, but deserving of our execration and abhorrence. (Loud and prolonged cheers.) There is one other question to which my hon. friend has devoted a consider able portion of his speech. He said, and I believe it, that a year ago he felt it a painful thing to stand here and avow opinions contrary to those of many of his friends, and contrary to those which I had avowed before. I told you then how painful a thing it was for me to stand up and controvert on this platform any of the statements which he had adduced. I came here to-night int ending to say no single word as to the question between North and South in the United States. My opinion is that the unanimous judgment of the people of England, so far as that is ever shown upon any public occasion, is in favour of the course which her Majesty's Gover ment have publicly declared it to be their intention to pursue. I believe that my hon. friend is mistaken in the view which he takes of the meaning and of the result of what he calls the recognition of the South. (Cheers.) I have seen it stated by authority, North as well as South, and by authority which I may term English, and by authority from France, that in the present condition of the quarrel recog nition, by all the usages of nations, must necessarily lead to something more—(cheers)--and therefore, although there were no question of slavery, although it was simply a political revolt, and that there were no special moral questions connected with it--1 be lieve that, looking to the pest usage of this country with regard to the rebellion of the Greeks against the Turks, and with regard to the revclt of the colonies of South America against Spain, that it can be demonstrated that these cases afford no support whatever to the argument that we are permitted to recognise the South, and that if such recognition did take place now it could only exasperate still more the terrible strife which exists on the North American continent, and would spread that strife over Europe itself. Now, I am myself of opinion, and have been from the first, that the people of America so numerous, so powerful, so instructed, so capable in every way, would settle the differences of that continent without asking the old countries of Eu rope to take any share in them. I believe that in the providence of the Supreme the slaveholder—un taught and unteachable by fact or argument, or Christian precept—has been permitted to commit, I will not call it the crime, but the act of suicide upon himself. (Cheers.) Whether President Lincoln be in favour of abolition—whether the North are unanimous against slavery—whatever may be said or thought with regard to the transactions on that continent—he must be deaf and blind, and worse than deaf and blind, who does not perceive that, through the instrumentality of this strife, that most odious and most indescribable offence against man and against heaven, the slavery and bondage of four millions of fellow-creatures, is coining to a certain and a rapid end. (Loud cheers.) Sir, I will say of this question that I look forward to the time when I shall stand on this platform with my hon. col league, and when he will join with me—for he is honest enough and frank enough to do that—when he will join with me in rejoicing that there does not breathe a slave cn the North American continent— (loud cheers)—that the Union has been completely restored, and not less will he rejoice that England did not in the remotest manner, by a word or a breath, or the raising•of a finger, or the setting of a type, do one single thing to promote the atrocious object of the leaders of this accursed insurrection. (Continued cheering.) Now, Sir, I must ask you to listen to me a little on matters less exciting, and our friends down below (alluding to the crowded state of the hall), who are enduring a sort of purgatory, I must ask to be as compassionate to me as they can, and I will commiserate them as much as possible. About two months ago, on the 24th of November, I had the opportunity of making a speech in the town of Rochdale, where I live. The meeting was, I suppose, nearly as large as this. It was called for the purpose of affording an oppor tunity to our distinguished representative, Mr. Cobden, to address his constituents. There are very few meetings of that kind in Rochdale to which I am not invited, and in which I am not ex pected to take part. On that occasion I took the opportunity of objecting to those persons who think that everything is done in this country that need to be done, and that everybody is so happy that politics are at an end. I spoke particularly of the question of the million or million and a half of our labouring population employed in cultivating the soil. I need not tell you what you know per fectly, that from that time to this there has been rather a lively discussion in the newspapers about what was said on that occasion. I have had no opportunity of speaking, and I have not thought it necessary to write anything o❑ the matter; but if you will give me your attention for five minutes, I should like to say a little about it. Now, what I said to that meeting on the subject of the land was this :—I should say, if we were fairly represented, that feudalism with regard to the land of England should be abolished ; and that the agricultural labourer throughout the United Kingdom should be redeemed from that poverty and serfdom which, up this time, has been his lot. It would t a k e a long speech, indeed it would take a night to go into the question of the condition of that class--but with laws such as we have, intended to bring, large tracts of land into the possession of one man, that one man may exercise great political power, that system is a curse to the country, and dooms the agricultural labourer to perpetual poverty and degradation. Now, there were comments upon that speech, but I shall only refer to the comments of one paper, the Times. The Times, in an article on foreign politics, and speaking of the small States of Europe, which may have something to gain by change, said they may look upon these changes with something of that satisfaction with which the poor might regard Mr. Bright's proposition for the division among them of the lands of the rich. Well, now, you know that a correspondence took place almost immediately, and in consequence of that passage, between my friend Mr. Cobden and Mr, John Delane, the editor of the 7i)nes, Now this is what the times had said two days after the speeches :—" This language"—that is the language that Mr. Cobden and I had used, and my language , I am free to say, was more strong on the general question than Mr. Cobden's—" this language, so often repeated, and so calculated to excite discontent among the poor and half-informed, has really only one intelligible meaning. Reduce the electoral fran chise; and when you have done so you will obtain an assembly which will seize on the estates of the pro prietors of the lamd and divide them gratuitously among the poor." (Laughter.) Well, sir, when this notable newspaper editor was brought to book, what did he say ? On the same day he wrote a letter to Mr. Cobden, the 18th December, and he also had an article in his newspaper. In his letter he says this, " You seem to assume that I charged you with pro posing that this division should be accomplished by violence.' Does anybody believe that anybody without violence can seize upon the lands of the rich and distribute them gratuitously—that is, for nothing—among the pow'. On the same day, in an article, he made this statement, " Nobody was likely to charge these two gentlemen with recommending agrarian outrage; for their interests are as much bound up with social order, the rights of property, and the Queen's peace, as that of the whole peerage." That is true enough; but why did he not find that out before he made that charge P He says—" Nobody who read the single line which Mr. Cobden ha 3 seized for a peg to hang his defence upon would imagine for a moment that it pointed to violence." Well, now, that is a gentleman who professes to reconcile and lead the nation. Suppose that he had charged Adam Smith, the great apostle of political economy, with approving piracy, or if he had charged John Wesley with being a great encourager of drunkenness and profanity, would it have been more extraordinary than that he should charge Mr. Cobden and myself with instigating to agrarian outrage, the seizure o the estates of those who now hold them, and the di. viding of them amongst the poor—of course, taking nothing from the poor for them, and, therefore, giv ing nothing to the rich for them ? Why, I w;11 undertake to say, if there be two men in England who have more constantly and more earnestly for 25 years preached the doctrine of absolute honesty with regard to legislation, those two men are Mr. Cobden and myself.(Cheers.) But Mr. Cobden came forward to assail Mr. Delane with regard to this charge against me. He found a man in a mask en deavouring to stab me in the back—for he had not seen that the same man had been in a previous ar• title also stabbing him—and he came forward and dragged his mask from him, and showed him, with whatever lineaments he is distinguished, to the gaze of the whole nation and the whole world. After denial and equivocation of every kind, this unmasked editor of this great journal was obliged to retire from the personal part of this controversy, and to skulk back into the anonymous, which suits him better. (Laughter and cheers,) Neither Mr. Cobden nor I have ever said anything to show that we thought it desirable to abolish by force of law anony mous writing in our newspapers; but Mr. Cobden laments, as I do, and as you ail do, that the anony mous system inevitably is a shelter for a man who has no sense of honour. I recollect a description which, I am sure, will suit Mr. Delano admirably. It was published some time ago in the city of New York, and describes a notorious politician there, who, if I am not mistaken, has been at the elbow of the New York correspondent of the limes for the fast 12 months, with what happy success to the fore cast and the honesty of that paper we all know. it was said of him that he was a just man, and a right eous, and he walked uprightly before the world; but when he was not before the world his walk was slant ;Ai gdicular. (Laughter and cheers.) Sir, the 2 inzes newspaper, notwithstanding all this, is a power in this country—(hear, hear)—and a power in Europe. No man laments more than Ido that so much power should be associated with what I will call a godless intellect and a practical Atheism. No one laments more than I do that a paper that was once great in its independence has become now—what shall I say ? domesticated,—for the editor of the 7imes is now domesticated in the houses of Cabinet Minis ters and members of high families in London. He has learned now in this day that that paper might have been more useful than ever to fetch and carry for Cambridge House. (Laughter and cheers.) And, Sir, for aught I know, looking to what is said in the clubs in London of the dispensation of patronage to men who have been writers in that journal—l am not sure, unless what I say now may make it difficult, that some day or other Mr.\Valter, the proprietor or chief proprietor of that paper, may not find himself placed in the House of Peers as a compensation for the services offered to the present Prime Minister of England. (Laughter and cheers.) But now pass ing from that subject, you will remember that my argument at Rochdale was this, that the agricultural labouring population of this country was in a de plorable condition, but I believed that to a large extent it was to be attributed to the unsound and unjust laws which regulate the possession and dis tribution of land. You know of course, living in Birmingham, as well as we know, that contrary to what exists in some countries, we have first the I great landowner, who is always becoming richer— that is if he does not spend too much—his land is always becoming more valuable; you find him living in a better house, with more gorgeous fittings and with more splendid equipages. [A Voice—And so is the cotton owner.] No doubt if you pursue it further you will find the tenant farmer occupying larger farms, and with much greater apparent wealth. But if you come to the labourers who cultivate the land, by whose toil and whose sweat your tables are furnished with bread and with beef, and with many other things that they produce, you find labourers at this moment, I believe, at a greater distance from the landlord and from the tenant, probably, than they were almost at any former period. (Hear, hear.) [A Voice—No.] There is a gentleman in the body of the hall who evidently differs from me, I am very glad he is in the meeting. I would ask you whether, in past years, you have ever read any letters in the limes newspaper signed " S. G. 0," Those letters are written by a gentleman of rare in telligence and of great beneVolenee, sled hie descrip tion I believe may be entirely relied upon. If any of you happened to read some three or four months ago letters written from parts of Buckinghamshire and published in the Star newspaper with tegatd to the condition of that population, you will know what it is that I mean. But if you are unwilling to take their evidence, let us take that of a witness that nobody here will call in question, and that is, the evidence of the Saturday Review. Now, on the 26th September last there was an article in that journal on agricultural labourers, in which it said—and I beg you to listen to it, for in point of fact it is a great point of my speech—" When the dull season of the year comes round—that is, between October and the meeting of Parliament— all sorts of odd persons and things have their share of public attention, and even agricultural labourers are pitied and discussed. At other times they live on with no one to care much for them—the farmer looking on the m as hi s na t ura l enem i es , th e parson' s kindly soul getting weary of his long combat with their helpless stolid ignorance, and the squire not knowing what he can do for them further than build two or three Elizabethan cottages, covered with .thinking are moved how ve true dto t languidbrutes shame haenripewo and et s a a n d o n u e t ss them, b3, wretched, uncured for,untaught are who raise the crops on which we li ve ." B ear in mind that is cot my languag e , b u t th e lan guage of a great friend of th e agr i cu lt ura l interests. The writer says—" There is a wa ilin g for the dirt and vice and misery whi c h must prevail in houses where seven or eight p ers ons of both sexe s and all ages are penned up t oget h er for the night in the one rickety, foul, vermin- haunted bedroom. The picture of agricultural life unrolls itself before us as it is painted by those who know it best. We see the dull, clouded mind, the bovine gaze, the brutality and recklessness, the simple audacity, and the confessed hatred of his betters, which mark the English peasant, unless some happy fortune has saved him from the general lot, and persuaded him that life has something be sides beer that the poor man may have and may re lish," Then he goes on to declare " that the old feudalism of England—the state of things when they yet were serfs, and when the lords of the soil were almost a different order of beings—still colours the relations of the rich and the poor." Perhaps you would like to know what he says an agricultural labourer ought to be and do. He says—" It is looked on as the duty and place of the poor man to stay for ever in his native village, to work for ten or twelve shillings a week, to bring up a le rge family respectably on the money, to touch his hat to the gentry, to go to church regularly, and make out as much as he can of the service. To be content and happy. To hate the public-house and feel no longing for company, or a bright fire, or gossip ; to be guided towards heaven by the curate and the young ladies." (Laughter.) He adds—" This is the poor man which modern feudalism aims at pro ducing." This is the testimony of the Saturday Review—and what do you think the writer pro poses ? He proposes that instead of a man receiv ing his parochial relief from the parish, he shall be allowed to receive it from a larger area, namely, the union. He says that a law, hardly ever put in force, by which a working man who breaks his eon tract with his master is treated as a criminal, should be abolished. I do not think that these remedies would be sufficient for the malady he has described in such powerful lan guage, and I ask you this question—ls it an un changeable law of heaven that the agricultural popu lation of this country shall continue in that condi tion ? (Cries of no, and cheers.) They tell you your agriculture is far better than the agriculture of any other country, that you can produce a larger quan tity of wheat than any other producer from a given surface. We know that there is the greatest market in the world close at our doors, and the means of conveyance to every part of the kingdom. Then I want to know why it is that the labouring popula tion on the farms of the.coun try are in the condition in which they are described ; is it so in the most civilised countries in Europe ? Is it so in the United States of America ? I could give it to you (only read ing evidence from books is not suited to a meeting like this, from the highest in rank, from the most culti vated in mind, from those most extensively known in public affairs; and I could prove to you beyond all contest, that in all those countries in Europe, where the land is divided and the people have the chance of having some of it—at least those who are industrious and frugal—that the condition of the agricultural peasant population is infinitely superior to anything to be seen in Great Britain and Ireland. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, you may ask me very reasonably—What is the difference be tween the laws of these countries and the laws of ours, and what change do you propose ? I will tell you in as few words as I can. In the greatest por tion of the continent of Europe, in France, in Ger many, in Belgium,'in Holland, in Norway, and it is likely to spread over Europe, the state of the law is this. It follows what I believe to be the natural law of affection between parents and children, that a large portion of the property of the parent must by will, or if not by will the law will order it to be equally divided among the children. What is the case with respect to all property but land ? All the property of the parent, according to the number of his children, must be divided amongst them, except what ho may be queath by will. You are to be frightened by this law of bequest as if it was something very dreadful. Why it only follows the rule which merchants and manufacturers and all other people in the world have followed in latter days, in treating their children with equal affection and equal justice. (Cheers.) Go to the United States and you will see a different state of the law from what you will find in this country. There a man may leave his property as he likes among his children, because the United States law believes that natural affection and justice form of themselves a sufficieet law in the majority of cases, and therefore that it is not necessary to en force them by any statute. If a man dies without a will, the law of the United States takes his pro perty, and looking upon his children with equal affection and equal justice, makes that distribution which it believes the just and loving parent would have made. But if you come to this country what do you find ? This—That with regard to all kinds of property except that which is called real pro perty—the land of the country and the houses upon it—our law does exactly the same. It divides it equally amongst the children, because it knows that that is what the parent should have done, and would have done if he had been a good parent. (Cheers.) Bat when it comes to the question of land, then, contrary to the European law, which makes a sta tute according to natural justice —contrary to the United States law, which, when there is no will, makes a law in accordance wiih natural justice, our law does exactly that which natural justice would forbid. (Cheers.) I should like to know if anybody is prepared to deny this. Personalty—that is, property which is not land—is divided equally. The property which is land is not divided equally, but is given to the eldest son in a lump. Now, tell me whether the principles which the law o f Eu rope for the most part wishes to enforce, that which the law of America enforces when there is no will, that which we enforce when land is out of the question, tell me if that is not a more just law, approving itself to the hearts of men and before the eye of Heaven—than the law by which we send as beggars into the world half a dozen children in order that we may make one rich in the possession of the land. (Cheers.) What are the reasons ? These things are not done without reasons, for they are high political reasons. (Laugh ter.) Now, these reasons are very curious in some countries. In Turkey it has been the custom a long time—it is hardly broken down yet—that the wielders]of the sceptre should even destroy their younger brothers, lest they should become competi tors with them for the throne. What would you think if the law of this country doomed the younger children to the want of freedom and the want of education, and conferred freedom and education on the elder son, leaving the rest to go into the streets? But it would be just as reasonable to cut off all the youngers boys and girls from education as it is to cut them off from their fair share of their father's property. But you will find to-morrow morning, in all probability, an editor in this town —who does not serve you generally, as I have noticed, with strong meat—you will find that, if he comments on this part of my speech, he will say, what use would it be to make a law that all the pro. perty shall be divided in case there is no will ? So few men d.e without a will that it will make very little difference. Well, I will tell you what diffe rence it will make. It would take all the tremen ' dons sanction of the law' from the side of evil and place it on the side of good. There is a case, it is the only one which occurs to rue at present, which happened aeout the time when the Arne lean colonies were sepaved from this country. In the. Late of Virginia lays of primogeniture and entail were en forced in the most rigid manner. Mr. Jefferson, after wards the President, considered it one of the greatest acts of his :ifs that he had prevailed on the Legis lature of Virginia to abolish this law, and in his life I find his statement :—" The class which pro vided for tie perpetuation of its wealth also mono polised the civil offices." You will be able to judge whether tlat is the case in this country. (Cheers.) Amongst the reasons which he gave for abolishing entails, he said he wished to make an opening for the aristocracy of virtue and talent, which now has so wisely presided for the direction of the interests of society, end scattered with eq ual hand throughout its conditions. When he c ame to the abolition of the law of primogeniture, it is stated by his biogra pher that this change had not merel y altered tthroughoutt tribution 9f that portion of lan ded property which is transmitted by the silent oper ation of the law, but that it had also operated on p ublic opinion 60 ae to - influence testa mentar y dis p ositions by the proprie tors. He went on to say tha t cases are very rare in which a parent makes by his will a much more_uu- equal distribution of his property a mong his child ren than the law itself would make. It is thus that laws tt emeelves—the creature of public opinion— often powerfully react upon it. The writer goes on to show that the effect of the change had been to alter the distribution of land. It lessened the chances of ever being so enormously rich, and it gave much greater chances for moderate riches and comfort ; and that if there were fewer coaches-and-six in the State of Virginia, there were twenty times as many carriages and pairs. (Cheers and laughter.) The question of primogeniture I have briefly touched on. The question of entail is much on the same footing. I will only say a word or two on the subject. The object of entailing land is to keep great estates to gether, and to keep them in one family. Under this system land in this country is sometimes tied up for fifty, eighty, or one hundred years, and no person has the power to sell it, however advantageous it may be to the proprietors themselves and to the pub lic that the land should be sold. (Hear, hear.) And then we come to the difficulties of the question of transfer. If you will ask gentlemen who are near me, who are connected with the law, they will tell you that it always takes months, and sometimes sears, to provide a title, and of course that has no inconsiderable effect in increasing the amount of the purchase-money. (Cheers.) Now, may I ask what are the particular reasons for which this state el things is maintained ? It is for the very reason for which this system was established 800 years ago that there may be in this country a handful of persons — twice as many, perhaps, as there are in this room, who are the owners of nearly all the land in the country—in whose hands is concentrated nearly all the power, and by whom the government of the country is mainly conducted, and amongst whom the patronage of the Government is mainly distributed. (Loud cheers.) In every country of the world as far as I know, the possessors of land are the possessors of power. In France at this moment we all know perfectly well that notwithstanding there may be a revolution now and then in the streets of Paris, still if you come to the greater question of voting, of the opinion of numbers, the proprietors of the land of France are the vast majority of the voting population, and ten or twelve years ago it was their suffrages that conferred the supreme power upon the present Emperor of the French, (A Voice—That's a lie. Laughter.) If you cross the Atlantic and study the political system of the United States, where almost all the farmers are the owners of their farms, you will find that they are the holders of political power. The city of New York, through its mayor, it may be at one time, or the governor of the State at another, and the news papers of New York may denounce the policy of the Government at Washington ; but it is not the tenant but the land-owning farmers and cultivators of the great States in the interior of the country who are the depositories of political power, by whose will alone the President of the United States is able to carry on the great matters which belongs to his exalted station—(cheers)—and it is the same in the Southern States—for the great planting population —the great owners of plantations, aro the life and soul of the disorders which are now unhappily reigning in those States. If you come to your own country, if you. come to your own county of War wick, you will find that two or three landowners can sit down and determine who shall or who shall not go to Parliament in the pretended representa tion of the population of this county. (Cries of Shame.) I believe that these vast properties, which are of no real advantage to those who hold them— for £lOO,OOO or £200,000 can give no more real happiness than £lO,OOO or £5,000 a-year—l believe that these great properties give great political power, and this, which we call our great territorial systern,prevails to an extent in this country which is probably unknown in any other, and leaves the cul tivators of the soil ignorant and hopeless and de graded. (Cheers.) There is a great tendency to larger farms throughout the country, which makes it still more difficult even for a labourer even to be come a tenant, or even to rise above his present condition. An illustration occurs to me which I once before used in this room. I see a ladder—e social ladder—up which I want to see the poor, and depressed, and unfortunate nine-shil lings or tee-shillings a week labourer ascend gradually. I should rejoice to see him getting up a few steps and becoming a farmer, even in a small way, or becoming the owner of a piece of land; but I find that at six, or eight, or ten feet every stave of the ladder is broken out, and from his low position he has no chance of ascending. Let there be slips of small farms and small estates, and lot land generally be bought and sold, and then the labourer will have something to hope for, some thing to save even his small savings for, and by chance some of them may find their way from their humble and melancholy position to one which I wish from my soul every labourer in the country could occupy, (Loud cheers.) Now, for fear that that the man in the mask—he has got his mask on again for a time—(laughter)—for fear the man in the mask should misrepresent my views, let me tell you that I am not against great estates, or great farmers, or great properties, or great factories ; but I have a great desire to see small estates, and small farmers, and small factories. In this country, where there is such a great creation of wealth, there is always a great desire for the accumulation of I know the case of a nobleman—it is in a southern county—l am speaking from public report—who is said to have £120,000 a year, but who being a wise man as regards his expenditure, only spends £40,000 a year; but it is a mystery to me how he does it. (Laughter.) He has thus £BO,OOO a year left, and what does he do with it ? Why be buys every farm, every estate that offers; and thus his estate is gra dually growing bigger. I don't blame him for that. I applaud him in this respect, that he is a man who does not waste his property ; and I have always heard the nobleman to whom I refer bears an excel.- lent character in the neighbourhood where he lives. There are persons who come from Manchester and from Leeds, and I hope from Birmingham, who can purchase considerable estates. These is always a tendency in this country, especially where we have so much manufacturing and commercial industry and wealth, to buy estates. There possessions give great social position and great political influence. I am not complaining of this; it is a natural, and a just, and a healthy thing; it is desirable that the farmer should have the stimulus of ambition to acquire larger farms, and that those possessing estates should wish to acquire larger estates. This is the stimulus that leads men to strive for some thing honourable in this country. But to have all these influences working in that direction, and to add to this influence the force of a most intricate and complicated sys tem of law—to give all these forces greater forces, is in my opinion contrary to all the true interests of England ; and I believe that if it goes on in this way for another half century as it has been for the last half century it may cause discontent and great embarrassment within this now peaceful kingdom, (Cheers.) What I propose is this—it is the most moderate that can be proposed. If you want to see an admirable description of what I think it would be wise to do you will find it in a paper which certainly is not very Radical —I mean the Spectator—a weekly Lon don newspaper. There was an article on landowners in the State of New York. The writer says with regard to certain changes, "No doubt Mr. Bright did not consider them sufficient for his purposes and w ishes." Now he is qu it e mistaken. The changes w hich he proposes aosedre m ore ex t ens ive than any changes wh ich I ever prop, either in public or private. What are these c hanges ? First . of all, that the law shall declare that when d eny p r e a r t s io o n n o o f w i n t in h g lant:_ed property dies without ma king a l w ill the ta:v shall distribute i t on the same e principle a that For examl lt su ppose a man h as g ot n ow adopts an y other kind of rt rtopb a y le, and I w P i s e h money in ever ybody had---(cheers an dl aug hter)—suppose he has mac hinery in a mil l, or merchandise in a warehouse, or and parchments in his safe—when he dies the law sharesmakes adistribution of all that property in accordance as I believe with the principle of parental affection and justice. I say let that principle be extended to all property of which a man may die possessed. In that respect I want to go no farther. (Cheers.) With regard to the question of en tails, I would say this—the Spectator proposes that a man may entail his property so as to prevent his heir and the next heir from disposing of it—that is, that there shall on l y be two p ersons in the entail. I only propose this, that a man may leave his property to any persons who may be living at the time he makes his will. But at present he can leave it to a number of people, and to the child unborn, and which may not be born until 20 years after the making the will. I would alter that sys tem. I should be content to have the property left to p er sons in existence , a nd whose names should appear in the will ; and you will not find as A, B, or C died off that the property would come into the hand of a roan who would have the absolute disposal of it. (Cheers.) That is what 1 want to see done, and I believe it would be better for the public if the freedom was given to the owners of land what is given to the possessors of other property. (Loud cheers.) There is one other point on which I wish to make a remark. The man who buys and the man who sells property finds the law regulating the transfer so complicated, that if Solo mon himself were here he could not come to any fair deci sion about it except that very curious one which he is re • ported to have done upon another point. (Cheers and laugh ter.) Now, everything which I am proposing is carried out to a somewhat greater extent in the United States, in most of the States, and to a greater extent on the continent of Europe; and it is being carried out in all the Australian colonies. It is the most curious thing in the world that whenever an Englishman leaves these shores, whether it be the effect of the salt air, or of sea sickness, or of that pro longed meditation which a long voyage invites, he seems to peel off, not the rags of his body, but the verminous rags off his intellect and soul ; he lands in Australia with his eyes perfectly clear, and he can see things in a common sense manner. (Laughter and cheers.) Now, I want to ask you, as reasonable men and men of business, if there is a man here who cannot understand the question mode rately well in the way in which I have endeavoured to put it. Is this spoliation? Is this agrarian outrage ? Is this stimulating working men and the agricultural labourer to—what shall I say ?—incendiarism or anything else he may have recourse to ? It is nothing of the kind. It is laying before them just principles of law, admitted to be just in every other country in the world except this, and which we admit to be just in regard to everything else, charged with all sorts of dread ful things by that gentleman in the mask, On the 27th of November he wrote this about Mr. Cobden :—" He (Mr. Cobden) stoops down and picks up a missile which has never yet been used but for anarehy and for revolution. Is it not in effect to tell the labourer and the workman to look over the fence of the labouring proprietor, and to learn them to think they have a natural right to a slice of the soil ?" The law steps in and makes it difficult to sell and to buy ; then I say that labourer has a right to look over the hedge and to feel that the law deals a grievous injustice—(loud cheers) — and it is this gentleman in the mask that frightens the landed proprietors. I met the other day with a gentleman connected with one of the largest properties in the kingdom. Ho said to me (and ho is a very liberal and thoughtful man), " You have no idea of the terror which your speeches create among the landed gentlemen." (Laughter.) I never frighten any of my neighbours. I do not know why I should be so alarming to those gentlemen who live in their great houses and their castles ; but the fact is, that the landed gentlemen are not a wise class. (Laughter.) There are brilliant exceptions. (Hear, hear.) There are many men amongst them who cannot be surpassed by any of their class, or of any class in the world ; but as a class—and perhaps one might say it of nearly every class—l believe it is true of the class to which I belong in Lancashire, they are not a wise class. They know something of agriculture. County members have to get it up for agricultural dinners—(laugh ter and cheers) —and they know something about horses, and they know all that can be known on the subject of game. (Laughter and cheers.) Well, on the principles of law and of government, speaking of them as a whole, and judging of them by their pest force, they are dark as night itself. Would you believe that the landed proprietors never found out, till Mr. Cobden and I and a few others told them, that the corn law was a great injury to them. (Laughter and cheers.) They did not know that it actually diminished the value of the lanSi and diminished the security of their rents, and that it loaded them with an inconceivable amount of odium. whilst at the same time it beggared hundreds of thousands of the people, and it menaced this nation with revolution. (Cheers.) Mr. Cobden and others who acted with us— chiefly perhaps because we were the most prominent—were slandered then, and by the gentleman in the mask, just as we have been now. (Cheers.) Tho Times was as foul mouthed upon us 20 years ago as it is now. (Cheers.) They said that we went about the country setting class against class. (Cries of " True," and "Shame.") They said that our views led to the confiscation of landed property. They said, in fact, everything that was spiteful and untrue, as they say now ; and yet is there a man in this country who will not admit that property is more secure in consequence of the abolition of that law which they believed to be the anchor of their safety, that animosities between class and class have been allayed ; and who shall tell how much it is owing to that that our Queen at this moment wields an un challenged sceptre over a tranquil realm ? (Great cheering.) A landowner in the House of Commons, an old member of the house, a representative of a south-western county, a man of excellent character, for whom I have always had the greatest respect, even when he was the most wrong—(hear) —said to me not long ago, speaking about the corn laws, they didn't then know the good we were doing to his class. (Laughter.) I nuged him and said " Well, if you would only have faith I could tell you one or two other things— (laughter)—that would do you just as much good if you would let us try them." (Cheers.) But he had not faith, (Great laughter.) Now I will just say to the landowners that I never was more their friend than in discussing this question as I am doing to-night without the least animosity to them—(laughter)—and with a belief as firm as I ever had on the question of the corn laws, that their interests are bound up with tho interests of the people in the right solution of this question. (Cheers.) I would ask to what are they tend ing under the operation of these law ? 'They are becoming every year smaller and smaller in numbers—the large ones aro rapidly eating up the small ones. The census returns show that the number of landed proprietors is but a handful in the nation, and every day becoming fewer and fewer. Their labourers remain at the old nine or ten shillings a •week. Somebody will write to the papers to-morrow and say they get twelve shillings—(laughter)—but bear in mind that they do not always receive wages on wet days—(loud laughter)—and I believe that the average money income of the agricultural labourer throughout the United Kingdom will not exceed, and many persons will say it will not reach, ten shillings per week. The smaller in number these landed proprietors become, the more, it may be, these labourers become discontented, There may arise some political acci dents, and political accidents come almost as unlookel for as other accidents. Yuu do not hear the tread of the earth quake which topples down your finest architecture, and the country gentlemen do not see the tread of that danger—it may be that catastrophe which inevitably follows upon pro longed unjust legislation. (Cheers.) And there may come a time--and I durst prophesy that it will come if there be an obstinate retention of our present system—when there will be a movement in this country to establish not what I believe to be the just, moderate, and sufficient plan which I recommend, but a plan which shall be in accordance with that which is established by the Code Napoleon iu France, and which is spreading rapidly over the whole continent of Europe. I would ask them again how do they propose to keep their population if this system is to be maintained. And now I beg the attention of you working men who are here to two or three observations upon this point. America, though 3,000 miles off, is not so far off but that people may go over there in about 12 days, and they may go there for a sum varying from £2 to £5. During the year that has just passed, I think 150,000 or 160,000 persons have sailed from this country to New York. (Bravo and cheers.) Every man who settles there is not blinded by mystifications and falsehoods of the New York Correspondent of the Times. (Cheers.) He is there, and can see what the working man gets, how he is considered, and what ho is, and he writes over to his friends in this country, as has been the case for years in Ireland, and the result has been that Ireland has been drained not of its surplus population, but of the popu lation actually necessary to the proper cultivation of the soil. (Loud cheers.) Now let me tell you a fact, and if you do not treasure it up in your minds, I hope one of those gentlemen, the landowners, who think I am very hostile to them, will just think it over, if he has time, as he eats his breakfast to-morrow or next day. (Laughter.) In America there are at this moment 140 millions of acres of land sur veyed, mapped, and set apart for those who are ready to settle upon them. In the year 1861, that was the first year after this war attained its present proportions, there were not less than 40,000 new farms, over 80 acres each, occupied in the Western States; but the Government of the United States, not content with that measure of progress, passed an act which came into operation on Jan. 1, 1863, which was called the Homestead Act. I have a copy of the act here, and I have a copy also of the circular which was issued at the same time. What is that Homestead Act? It is this —it says that any man or woman, 21 years of age, or younger, if the man happened to have been for a fortnight or a month in the service of the United States—whether in the army or navy, may go into these territories, may choose what is called a " section," which is 150 acres of land, being one-fourth of a square mile, and on payment of a fee of 10 dole., which is equal to £2 English, he may apply and have this land conveyed to him for no other payment for five years, and it cannot be alienated. He is not allowed to sell it, It remains in his possession, and at the end of five years—he having done to it what the Government requires, that is, settled upon it and begun cultivation, and so f or th —then the law gives him what is called a patent, but which is, in fact, what we call a Parliamentary title—the land is t take h m e o t r hhht e eeei rr hlr h si6a f u teodol rf aync : otw e eot s sh, f ega e rao r ent nad thiseabminge n absolute freehold for ever. (Cheers.) Now, it wou ld not latnoclgoisfrotino Bbeirmdinisgphoasemd y g h i b n m o to u oll r i e n y , cultivate b yfarmer, w h it, and a hnhed( would 0 0 0 u u ul ld of t . e a n ;e a g u i e p f get, I believe, now about 20 s . per ' week waeses besides his board and lod g i ng ; an d if h o wor k e d as a labourer for two or three years ho would be able to save a small sum, sufficient for him to commence the cultivation of a portion of his farm, and h o wou ld b e settled down there as a farmer and as a freeholder . (Loud ch eers .) N ow , d o not let me leave you with the ide a th a t th ere i s no roug h a nd rugged career in this. Th ere i s muc h t h at i s roug h an d much that is rugged. hut there is a good deal of that in this country now. (Cheers.) When a man looks upon those children that make, even in the poorest house, sometimes a gleam of joy—when he thinks what the se boys and girls must be in this country—never to rise one step higher than that which he occupies now as agricultural labourers ; and then he looks abroad and he sees them not labourers in the sense that we use the word here—not tenants even, but freehol ders, and landowners, and farmers of their own property, then I say that the temptation held out to men here to emi grate, if he knew all the facts, would be irresistible to hun dreds and thousands who have now no thought of moving to another country, Even our agricultural labourer's con dition is improved in some respects. There are some feeble efforts made to give him .....--...—...---------------- 4,. a little instruction. There rue nescoci papers published at a pri 'co which was at one tinxe de e° „ impossible. They find th eir way into agricultural villegel and the labourers will gi .adually begin to open the ir q b e ie and to see that a change o f their position is not sotieBith as they once thought it w me• Now what is that the United States offer more ? I 'lt ey offer social equalitirt'e'; offer political equality—they 0 , "L;1 . to every child of everY°.a, in whose face lam now looking ; education from the lAttl'it; of his alphabet up to, if he has the capacity to travel so' f e ; the highest knowledge of classic s and mathematics w hich - r' offered to the best students in tl to colleges of this countrYr and all that without the payma tt of one single farthing', except that general paym,lnt in which all the peop le ticipate in the school-rate. of the various States of:eteo Union. Well, now, I ask you ii lam wrong in eal i , l3° o the rich and to the great, Oat I believe, if they their own interest, it would be wa -th their while 1 0 trY l „ e . make this country a more desirable one for the peon t° lit in. (Cheers.) If they disregard t, xis great question', s class —shall hthaevamtaidddeleeicdleashse—twoerzi it absolutell Pe liet eF .. tonal magnates and the just rights , %i til ' rue callaii°7l: of the :I'll:et:11'19-1' trymen. (Cheers.) There are some ra en—l Mat theta 0°,3; and then--and I wonder where the - ss.ore born , et ° , w r i4 they came into the world, who re, gard these ietrlt°.;s magnates as idols before whom we a' .'e all to bow doirtl,6", humble submission. I think travellet -ft tell us ther e 1 ,, tribe in Africa so entirely given up to is uperstition ere fill their huts and hovels with so many idols that theY,b!s not leave room for their familial. It may be I° tli o to . country, that we build up a system' which is detrimea 0,, our nf political freedom, and is destructive of the beetliter; the great mass of our producing. and waiting C fn f r (Cheers.) Now, am I the enemy of any class if I ; co l eo e t :h as a ard to state facts like these, and t o ex Plain Pri ll , c.l° ,l g te 3l these ? Shall we go groping con tintuilly in the " -r . a Do ne' it i / making no effort to strengthen our position 1 pose the because I stand here I love better to 4nd fe l t l l ert laws of my country than to praise them, that I fi ' . i gi Englishwith and less patriotic, or that I have less erloe. ful, and t coobulenwhtraaynptpanyend.rmeoyucnotur.nytambeen than other a t e o r (Chee m rs y ) popuions, to J e r i 01 , but this end can only be t' tt ' t i 10 1 . never has been attained in any country but by i t° to be beliec e i ho e justly administered. I plead only for what I just. I wish to do wrong to no an For .25 Ye 3/5 ;00 - en st i o e o a d d. before audiences, great meetings of to y co r i ';, 0311: time,p :lag only for justice. (Loud cheers.) Pur-'snitij. as you know, I have endured measureless deed°l not I have passed through hurricanes of abuse. 1 , tte richtell yo a u nd th t a h t e, gmryeatc,lihennettsanrnahtoahtveer give e t geeanr a 0.3111 thboelejostaiif," (Hear, hear.) They fli p () piaCe f 17- OP nities and wealth ; but their honourable servicejoe me that wh kb is of far higher and more lastillg: a g la' the in consciousness that I have been expounding s l3 ' fini i - - I ° t ll l e thunder laws wbi , :la, though they were not givel3„- f o° . , °. an u d nders of Sinai, are not less the commandittell'"°p'tlP of not less int ended to promote and secure the ,ie. sit men. (The lion. gentleman resumed hiss eat sell ° tit /141 A cheering. ) vote Mr. 1 of thanks to Scholefield and gr. -6; t ti gh su b seq uently carries', and th e proceedings Were br°— a termination at hall '-past ten o'clock. ____........ - -.,--- COUY,TRY MARKETS• 0 1 BRI STOL—TnEsDAS• to ,(151 , de There was a fun a t tendence of the trados,ooo everything was held fira fl y , with a fair con uw' mend. _ le° SIIEFFIEL I)—TvEsll6s', f the ir ß i ,, - relf There was a full average sh,,w of grvin , u ; 11 ;, Met e wheat ruled extremely dull, anCI former P rice att eil , maintained. Other articles also ' dun.. '-'• 'Jo 11 5 j was unusually small. , 15 8Cia l t to ° 1 95 A 6 1 Red wheat, par load of 3 imperial bus:leli ''':l7st 3 ',,,lls 4 "i White B p e e a a n s, s . .1 55 6 , ° i)1 8 '6,1 f I New red ‘,11 6 P 11 9 0,1 New white ' • - Oa t° 43 If f 1 .1 05 , c lto 4„0 , 1 If 19 per qr , os v. , n 's6i , i Grinding barley, per qr - .q.. Malting ditto, .... ."9 Ocl' ° ' Oats 79 .............. 1 3 If .................. . Flour, is 4d to le Sd per 14 lb. r3it LEEDS—TUESDAY. # pr 0- lo ft eLy There are good arrivals of grain both by ge r, r iot this week, The wheat trade to-day contnilhenB, I t P A r i e OctO and only a limited business was done at 3 ' ‘ ,14. 4 rates. Good barley without change ; other, P,. e d, to sell. Oats, beans. and other articles tinfute" -- rr v,so -1. .to l ie ' MARKET HARBOROITGII--Iv— r 3„' o White wheat,:42s to 44s ; red, 363 to 40s P e 2S ' er o Malting barley at 33s to 36s per ( r. ; gri lldillg o t 039 per 30 st. Oats, old, 26s to 298 1 ; new,, . 2°3 i st. ; beans, 33s to 38s per qr. LIVERPOOL—TursDO. jefiler°,/ed There was a small attendance both of to l l 01 3 ,08 country millers at market to-day. Wheat 33.170,t ,itS' slow sale, ano improvement ea the prices 9 0 ,1 pi Flour quiet, but nominally unca.nged in Prig:,,,r j 1)1 1 little doing in Indian corn—holders oatmeal met a dull sale and. prices about statfloo 3 I buyers only offering 30s. ----!-- oolong' Foreign Mail Packet Ps ti ~ is. Australia l a i n a d an c d ap M e a v uri er t d i i‘ us s : A , 1416.,SoDutItlittpWrI•' '. - r i v. 1:: , , ~ ,,v b . , Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, by y v i a B l‘ r l i t a i a r s s nh e d i l l ,IsFiectl. iti..0..1..:.0.:. 1. f r s e i; : ‘, 1 3, : China, Penang, and Singapore, via SouthaloP - ..1 01 '' Gibraltar,Fifna ad l k iiaa l a (( n ßc d a Islands lmevubiatatya)) ,Southampton andviavia Zdarsei lleli .. 0 1 ' .. • • • ',Do' "I .......... ,• 4,1). , rapto-°:JAA. ~e, iNS C io e au y rt l he o ai n lm ,: , ~psti v iao t Southampton t r . ..h s . ..a ci l i . .................... i 13 ,: 0etit :, ,5 : P :Out o l.: r cis t tr u a.to, g an — a Ea l dng . _ ......... ~. ..,,, ......... . 0 , ,_„, ~0 d y . . B . p l: . t ittilg. and vi A a den, via Southampton..•. J 1.3. via Marseilles ..*" :',Yo Newfoundland ..................... ~ 3 , ....... ..••••":Fe'' ..... . ... ket „.• 0::. 0 , s o h N. America, by Brit. Pnecot...t'.lol. ii' by TJ.S. P, a pa cice Feb , i i, W.C. of Africa, Madeira, and Veneerilfaeafi'':',....).'d' Bahamas, via New York ................ .. „, Jar's, Mexico. All parts of West Indies, includin , Cb ili ' California. nd B' • ' •.. • i''' ' ritisl....___ i Colull nsEo N ilsv o eilNe l cs l s y .ll 7 ‘o, complete without a ---- /V 7.------l A r ' c rtil! ;lse'V e sl)t6l7l:lsi' l l4s: perfect family iairirNaEntedBlitnople tu , c l o No. 135, Regen m t- if erg", Oa ' but s a terhetente; VP.—[ADVT.] Pros p ectus EA p p ini v aP T lal . e : fee ° 0 cr°e:q es 1 : 9 1 :7 ° D ti i;:of , [ADvEcTisExENT.]—Consumption, 61 ' . : l p i'-r,t1,00, to liver, and stomach complaints, in evel9 /1 de oc , r 'lleO le t ;o l gravated and accelerated by drugs of el e a toril li °,ol o , - 91 4 . perfectly curable by Du Barry's health r' t c ase° $0. 6 m„,,4 Arabica Food, as proved by thousands ° Care 10 01 'd been considered hopeless. We quote a f eW.-- r eed les. , Ag e , 0, Miss Lange, 18 years of age, cured after the the las', ol .o ° _, abandoned all hopes of her recovery from ii, elcre- the pulmonary consumption, with fearful 00 ,4 5, h ell o ° er te t . exhaustion, spitting of blood, perspiration Go d, a 1 1 051 to 7 . , emaciated to a skeleton. She is now, th Brll4 couleFtils e e r healthy , blooming, fleshy girl.—N• Langeb'ertS, °' 1 01 1 '1.4 Police. Cure, No. 46,270. Mr. 'jaw" alt;tting°,t/D 21 , 14 0 ;11 , Surrey, of thirty years' diseased lungs , ~* -t „, No. , " l d ige°" l so , derangement, and partial deafness.—CO''tilmy. Elizabeth Jacobs, of extreme ner'Onstilicies."-- Nor;eil gatherings, low spirits, and nervous 1 3 10 00 05 10' 0 , 54,816. The Rev. James T. Campbell, f a bo g 11 0 0; 5 1 ./, of indigestion and torpidity of the live, d w . 21 b, 4 0 Ne. s o all medical reatment. In tins, ,Barrylll9 28 g and Co. : 01/ Hs; 121 b, 225; 241 b, 40s. Barry du 1 2.lase n l iir Regent-street, London ; also Fortnum '"..: vr ated -, 011 5 ,',,, grocers and chemists in every town of tu' un lit a tio o ,i ( ); ' 1 ; 0 f ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoI Io Healing not Harmful.—No same universal approbation for curing, all es t e r as that which this unguent has receiVe.o._l,ooo,nher:ol ulcers, fetid discharges, burns, blistered In nu t o . P o iot/s o r , similar affections are at ' once soothed, n ir i r t hh lB o 00, 1 ,, ) ? of soundness by Holloway's ointment eive e rttu. o c 1 , ) , , e ,i and his pills the wealthy may save th re°,, ea lth, 81 0 telroh ing and the poor may help themselves to i ' cs , be 12 1 0 joi e , medicaments are reasonable in price a nd 0 1 0% .1 1301',) in every hamlet. They have effectecle4,reried 0,..,,eriP awpapYligc a ° t ion.. h_:lloteToeatoi rilei010:401, swelled legs, and ulcerated limbs, an d , ."„V o 0 f re v spect of a happy future: after every h op __________/ been given up. --- ------------------ C o 3 . 11 _ t6 d r a - U ti g rli , t _ e e r v 4 :i 1 : : Births. 01 , ° II S , a Co o C f DA T 1 . the 23d inst., at Southsue j oin , of ' 00 JO Captaino. —Oa n k e t r it e e ll , 25th10tli iinisut;,stftbrts, ii: tho of . va3os, Dathan, Esq., R.N., of ILAI.S. D D gr s. ter, 1011 1181°1r ' ( GURNET.—On the 26th inst., a 1 io' stO Gurney, of a son. -,,:fr VW °, STAMER.—On the 25th inst., at till Trent, Lady Starner, of a son. bi l Marriages. t o, / 0 ° to •. at P u tog i 'tl)i cp i CAVEsisalilLnY,t—itnheOe 'eßyoansulcinEid3ry.es,--tEodslau.t,:hoe ft le9riit honlynto.uri_:: i fs ttior pp i 0 ,rti fil ,e - O'Brien, Bart. 'cl° 9 ' .0 1* t at lie' s 0 , Y PAP PS —HART.— On the 21st ins t ., to .IS-0 do, Eliary Papps, Esq., of Kensingtf,n; 4 . Ove daughter of Commander Hart, 11... Di • . 15 11 " 5' Deaths. a l e - e 4 • 04 L01 35551e- if ' BLiss.—On the 25th inst., at ... , Joh ° Birch, Esq ,aged 89. ~,, f,eo ll ' WI 23d i n st at 0,. poetic, Bi t ß o c n ii , Mr. Edwin satg.,edat66l.lenierrar, ara,lo.fr:o,l Butivexic,..N.---On the .l i t°''' CAToN . .-0a the 24th inst., at Blan b of 13 ' n or , fl ' e lb i(l. Caton Isf A., Cam 1, 11 i f ioe e roo 4 1 Richard Bewley , • h e L.t Aber re, Windsor, Lady olredilv .13Lri.nBekriinnca'knni' fl o u t. ,1311danfrdot°;dru. e ; a r b e i * o t o b if f P v i ° e „; i c n o I t n h s e h ire, campaignforme i r a l y E L g i y e u p t t . n a c ,t 0 I dell ire ' Woburn , - 1 -' of P COBB.—On the 24th inst., at -c.a, i L n in l c B o o l l n , isainidlitiwa,a:gseudb,soeq. uueilancitlyqt SA-tirkil:rlitiPii'llio:c 34 ilit ' ,10 0 :: Cobb Esq aged 74- g rue, -i - - ,e 1 HOUNE'.—On" the 26th inst., Th° l°3B °______ 4 6, land-street, Bankside, ag:LdS_______2* ______ Lit rdit.0 .4 1 : . ; I t Londonstran: Strand, ir , . t t d h a e n dill:cull:cif:hoe: Puy V:;1;::::(11e,,.otaill' I kti of tiNtioi.e 6112,ex_:wtraendud,e8Pdrai:::;an, liatiareTyl_:::.l4.o4.the - - 44 , nt Ala